Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Savage Beast

Look I'm all for swimming pool rights, but this is taking it way too far

Recommended Posts

Why does the US government allow young children the right to swim in swimming pools?

 

Child dies in pool accident at Traverse City resort

by The Associated Press

Thursday August 21, 2008, 4:21 PM

 

TRAVERSE CITY -- A 6-year-old boy has died after falling off a foam lily pad and striking his head in a swimming pool at a Traverse City resort.

 

The Grand Traverse County sheriff's department said Thursday Dylan Rosevear, of Livonia, was fatally injured in a fall at the Great Wolf Lodge.

 

Dylan was walking across a series of foam lily pads encased in plastic on Wednesday. Undersheriff Nathan Alger says the boy fell backward and hit his head on one of the pads, then fell into the water, which was three to four feet deep. He was wearing a life jacket.

 

His father and a lifeguard quickly pulled him out and administered CPR. The child was pronounced dead at Munson Medical Center.

 

An autopsy was scheduled at a hospital in Grand Rapids.

 

 

And here is yet another incident.

 

Child Dies After Falling Into Swimming Pool

 

Posted: Apr. 19, 2008

Updated: Apr. 21, 2008

 

Parkton, N.C. — An 18-month-old boy died Saturday after falling into a swimming pool at his Cumberland County home.

 

Nicholas Vest, of 4821 Desert Ridge Road in Parkton, was playing with a garden hose while his mother was cleaning out the family swimming pool, Cumberland County officials said.

 

The child’s mother, Sue Ellen Ramer, told investigators she left Nicholas to take her younger child inside the house. When she returned she could not find Nicholas. Family and friends began searching for him when he was finally discovered in the bottom of the algae-filled pool.

 

Emergency crews were called to the home shortly after 6:00 p.m. while Ramer administered CPR.

 

The child was unresponsive as he was transported to the Cape Fear Valley Medical Center. Doctors stabilized Nicholas after he arrived at the hospital and placed him on life support in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Saturday evening.

 

Cumberland County sheriff's detectives confirmed the child's death at 10:30 p.m.

 

No foul play was suspected and no charges will be filed against the parents, investigators said.

 

How many children have to die before the US Government bans the use of swimming pools? I'm tired of this danger threatening our children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, you doosh, while you can die in a swimming pool, you can't carry it to school and drown 30 of your classmates in it.

 

That, is why guns and pools, are different, moron. :overhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because, you doosh, while you can die in a swimming pool, you can't carry it to school and drown 30 of your classmates in it.

 

That, is why guns and pools, are different, moron. :doublethumbsup:

 

So besides banning guns, do you want to ban matches and gasoline?

 

Couple cans of Supreme and a match and someone could really do some damage at a school. :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So besides banning guns, do you want to ban matches and gasoline?

 

Couple cans of Supreme and a match and someone could really do some damage at a school. :doublethumbsup:

 

Sure, but once again, there is a key difference.

 

Gasoline has a legitimate purpose other than to kill people. Handguns do not.

 

Notice you can't by napalm at the store? Why? Because it has no legitimate function, and is dangerous. The same goes for guns.

 

Nice try though. But you FALE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So besides banning guns, do you want to ban matches and gasoline?

 

Couple cans of Supreme and a match and someone could really do some damage at a school. :doublethumbsup:

 

 

And you have to ban Airplanes, because Airplanes were used to kill thousands on 9/11.

 

Also, here in Oklahoma, Timothy McVeigh blew up thousands of people in the Murray Federal building years ago with a giant fertilizer bomb, so the US Government must also must ban bags of cow sh!t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you have to ban Airplanes, because Airplanes were used to kill thousands on 9/11.

 

Also, here in Oklahoma, Timothy McVeigh blew up thousands of people in the Murray Federal building years ago with a giant fertilizer bomb, so the US Government must also must ban bags of cow sh!t.

 

Once again, airplanes and fertilizer have legitimate uses, and guns kill more people in this country each year than those two things combined ever have.

 

Oh, and go try to buy enough fertilizer and other necessary things to make such a bomb now, and see how fast the ATF shows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, but once again, there is a key difference.

 

Gasoline has a legitimate purpose other than to kill people. Handguns do not.

 

Notice you can't by napalm at the store? Why? Because it has no legitimate function, and is dangerous. The same goes for guns.

 

Nice try though. But you FALE.

 

You want hand guns banned cuz you only see one purpose for them, and they have no legitimate purpose, huh?

 

** Handguns are used for protection against criminals nearly two million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes. (Kleck, "The Frequency of Defensive Gun Use," in Kates and Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate, S.F.: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You want hand guns banned cuz you only see one purpose for them, and they have no legitimate purpose, huh?

 

That article is bulls!t. I have better things to do than comb the net to find the article that proves it, but the claim that guns are used 5 times more often to prevent crime than to cause it is bull. :first:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, airplanes and fertilizer have legitimate uses, and guns kill more people in this country each year than those two things combined ever have.

 

I assume then you are anti-abortion, because abortion kills more people each year then guns do.

 

Oh that's right, babies deserve to die, so abortion should be protected by law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That article is bulls!t. I have better things to do than comb the net to find the article that proves it, but the claim that guns are used 5 times more often to prevent crime than to cause it is bull. :wave:

 

It is a fact. You whining about it not being true doesn't change that.

 

Want to know another little fact that will get your panties in a wad? Whenever a state enacts a Conceal and Carry law violent crime goes down. Happened here in Texas, as well as every other state in which it was enacted.

 

Ooh, I bet that steams your clams. :first:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a fact. You whining about it not being true doesn't change that.

 

Want to know another little fact that will get your panties in a wad? Whenever a state enacts a Conceal and Carry law violent crime goes down. Happened here in Texas, as well as every other state in which it was enacted.

 

Ooh, I bet that steams your clams. :pointstosky:

 

Lack of guns has had a pretty good track record with stemming violent crime too, just check anywhere in Europe.

 

And in Freakonomics, the author does a pretty good job showing that, in fact, the carry laws did not do as you claim... Roe v. Wade did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That article is bulls!t. I have better things to do than comb the net to find the article that proves it, but the claim that guns are used 5 times more often to prevent crime than to cause it is bull. :pointstosky:

 

 

Bwahahahahahahahaha............................. :lol:

 

You are such a liberal pvssy.

 

Why don't you come down here to Logan county Oklahoma, and I'll take you out deer hunting, and show you how to use a gun properly and safely.

 

I'll even let you wear the hat with the antlers on it for good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lack of guns has had a pretty good track record with stemming violent crime too, just check anywhere in Europe.

 

And in Freakonomics, the author does a pretty good job showing that, in fact, the carry laws did not do as you claim... Roe v. Wade did.

 

 

We don't need to go to Europe. How did the ban in DC do? :pointstosky:

 

I'm guessing your Freakonomics reference is a joke, but given your idiocy you may think it is legit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bwahahahahahahahaha............................. :pointstosky:

 

You are such a liberal pvssy.

 

Why don't you come down here to Logan county Oklahoma, and I'll take you out deer hunting, and show you how to use a gun properly and safely.

 

I'll even let you wear the hat with the antlers on it for good luck.

 

I know how to use a gun properly, and safely. Its kinda hard to grow up in Tennessee and not learn to shoot. Thanks for the offer though.

 

I have some fond memories of shooting rifles and shotguns with my dad. And I think those should be legal.

 

But the only legitimate use of a handgun is to kill a human being. That's it. Can't hunt with it. I'm willing to give up the joys of pistol target shooting to save thousands of lives. Apparently, I'm the only one on this bored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know how to use a gun properly, and safely. Its kinda hard to grow up in Tennessee and not learn to shoot. Thanks for the offer though.

 

I have some fond memories of shooting rifles and shotguns with my dad. And I think those should be legal.

 

But the only legitimate use of a handgun is to kill a human being. That's it. Can't hunt with it. I'm willing to give up the joys of pistol target shooting to save thousands of lives. Apparently, I'm the only one on this bored.

 

I guess rednecks in Oklahoma are different from rednecks in Tennessee? I doubt it.

 

I don't know one redneck in Oklahoma who grew up hunting who is ready to give up his handgun? :pointstosky:

 

This is why I think you are lying about growing up with guns in Tennessee. You have never shot a gun in your life pansy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lack of guns has had a pretty good track record with stemming violent crime too, just check anywhere in Europe.

 

.

 

What the hell, let's look at Europe. I just lifted this from a BLS post in the other thread.

Well, the best indicator of how that would work is to see what happened in other countries who HAVE banned handguns.

 

Let's try Britain...shall we?

From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

 

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

 

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

 

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

 

 

Oops! Titan's once again exposed as an idiot. :pointstosky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the only legitimate use of a handgun is to kill a human being. That's it. Can't hunt with it. I'm willing to give up the joys of pistol target shooting to save thousands of lives. Apparently, I'm the only one on this bored.

 

So the nearly 2 million times per year handguns are used to prevent crimes isn't a "legitimate use" to you? How brave of you to be willing to give up "the joys of pistol target shooting" while leaving 2 million per year out there to defend themselves without a gun.

 

What a selfish focking moron you are. :pointstosky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the hell, let's look at Europe. I just lifted this from a BLS post in the other thread.

Oops! Titan's once again exposed as an idiot. :pointstosky:

 

Yep, rose by 40%. How much you wanna bet that its still WAY WAY lower than here? Jagoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, rose by 40%. How much you wanna bet that its still WAY WAY lower than here? Jagoff.

 

Changing your argument again I see. You said bans lower crime rates, that was proven to be horseshit.

 

Next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I said it lowers gun deaths.

 

You should at least go back and edit your ealrier post if you are gonna flat out lie about what you said.

 

Lack of guns has had a pretty good track record with stemming violent crime too, just check anywhere in Europe.

 

A moron and a liar. :pointstosky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×